The World at One is Britain's leading political programme with a reputation for rigorous and original investigation.
Have your say
Welcome to Have Your Say, where you can read other listeners' comments and submit your own. Use this form or email us wato@bbc.co.uk.
Your email address will not be used for any other purpose than to contact you regarding your comments.
Scroll below to read comments on these subjects:
Oil / Fuel Prices
Embryo research
MPs' Expenses Immigration
Read other listeners' views
Oil / Fuel Prices
All the parties MUST get together on green policies so that it is not a party issue. We are talking about the world we are leaving to our children and grandchildren. We must become much greener, use much less carbon, more public transport, no more roads, no more airports, or we've basically had it, Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, whatever. Betsy Barker
The government levies this tax at punishing levels without offering viable alternatives to driving. How are people not to use cars when rail travel is extortionately expensive, buses are not cheap, local railway stations close, local post offices close and local surgeries merge into bigger ones to which people cannot walk? The government seems blind to the fact that driving for many outside London is a necessity, it's a matter of keeping your job, of getting kids to and from school, of getting food and other supplies. The tax seems designed to punish excessive driving: i.e. we drive too much, but at the same time, the government sinks billions into road-building schemes. Adam Bukolt
I would just like to mention the plight of thousands of people like myself who work in large cities like London and have had to move large distances from their place of work due to exorbitant housing prices. Obviously for us train travel is out of the question ( when I last checked it would cost me approx. £49 a day) hence the tens of thousands of single occupancy cars plodding up and down the motorways each rush hour. Why is the question of renationalisation of the railways never raised? Most people I know and talk to think that this is the most obvious and viable answer to our ridiculous levels of carbon emissions the billions of pounds spent on motorway widening and the untold amount that constant traffic congestion cost the economy and the environment. Graeme Simson
As a petroleum engineer with 34 years in the industry, let me suggest to you that the government is highly irresponsible to plan for $70 oil with attending runway extensions and road building. We are facing peak oil: half of the oil on this planet has been produced (the easy half) and we are at full capacity. The remaining half will come at ever slower rates, whilst at the same time demand from the developing world is increasing relentlessly. Oil will cost ever more in the future. Our mobility will revert to the level our grand-parents enjoyed: ocean-liners and no airplanes, few car journeys if any. Bruce Stevens
Come on, one minute the government wants to increase the price of petrol because of global warming, the next they want OPEC to increase the amount of fuel lifted, increasing carbon emissions. The reality is that this government is so profligate that it depends on tax and the largest proportion of the cost goes directly to the Exchequer. The answer to higher fuel cost should be to reduce the tax. But then Prudence Brown has spent all our money hasn't he so he has no room to manoeuvre. Brown and Darling are becoming the Laurel and Hardy of British politics: "that's another fine mess you've gotten me into" David Brinkman
Embryo research
Any parent would support wishes of the father just interviewed, this shouldn't have needed to be debated. Family is about sharing and making sacrifices for each other. When the 'donor' child is old enough to understand that he/ she helped to save his brother's life then no doubt he will feel proud and glad to have done so. All the very best to the father and the rest of the family. Sonya Bennett
Having just heard the harrowing case of a father whose son faces "death by a thousand knives" unless a saviour sibling is found, I was astounded to hear the archbishop's comments in the following interview. His comments helped reassure me that Christianity remains one of the most awful superstitions ever created. Can we take the opinions of those who believe in virgin births and people being born again after death with a pinch of salt. I abandoned having imaginary friends at about the age of eight, along with my belief in Father Christmas. We should not allow those who hold 'faith' in similar remarkable superstitions to impose their ancient beliefs in a modern world where only science - and not petitioning the Lord - with the hope of surviving their awful ordeal. Steve Bird
It is quite ridiculous that the BBC is allowed to use unchallenged emotive cases of childhood suffering which serve only to obscure the central ethical issues surrounding saviour siblings. The amount of suffering relieved by any medical procedure is of no consequence if the procedure itself is immoral. Hence we do not justify harvesting the organs of newborns on the basis of the many individuals who might benefit from them. Why? Because such an action is intrinsically immoral.
Whether the same principles apply to saviour siblings is debatable (I think they do). But the problem here is the underpowered moral reasoning of the BBC, unwilling to challenge the ethical confusion involved. The reason we have laws and morality is precisely to exclude emotive and self-interested factors from society's judgements. When debating saviour siblings, asking what I would do if it were my child is precisely how NOT to proceed ethically and legally. Consider how would the children's commissioner feel if a saviour sibling later wishes to refuse (eg at aged 7) a bone marrow donation? How does the children's commissioner feel about this issue anyway, in terms of the rights of the child? Dr Robert Davis. Head of Department of Religious Education, University of Glasgow
I notice you plan to interview a religious leader on the subject of ethics and stem cell research. Why are you yet again wheeling out one of these religious people to comment? What have they got to do with the topic? Why do you feel it's necessary or interesting to ask the opinion of a member of a group who have caused more war and suffering than any other group on Earth...They are not qualified to spout moral opinion on any subject. I object to it. Why not speak to a scientist who is against the idea and another who supports it? Religious speakers have no place in these debates. Kevin Simpson, Bracknell
Embryo Siblings: This is a subject I would not have given much thought to a while ago. But I believe everyone who is the position of having to make the final decision should be made to read Judi Picoult's book My Sister's Keeper. Although only a novel, it cleverly shows the feelings of each member of the family involved, including the sibling bred for this purpose. I now feel that this method is obscene and should be eliminated from the debate, as I am sure others will that read the book. Jean Searle
Regarding your interview with the parent hoping to save his son. I would not hesitate to do the same. My husband put his name on the bone marrow register and was matched, he donated bone marrow twice to the same person because two donations were necessary. He opted for the short operation and did not find it too painful and the recovery period was short. He has helped to save the life of a young boy we don't know. I wish I had known more about bone marrow donation before I reached 40. It is an amazing gift to give. Please tell your listeners that it really is not as difficult or painful as they might think. That boy could have been our son. It could be any one of us desperate to help a loved one. If science could save your child, who would not follow that path? Jo Carter
I have a young son with an illness that will benefit with stem cell research, however as a Christian I disagree with the ethics. So far there has been no scientific evidence to show that this works. The government are resting their case with the Donaldson report which is outdated (1999). Currently there are 70 diseases currently being treated successfully using adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells. It seems that the government are listening to the wrong people and placing their eggs in the wrong basket. Jo Hurst
Yet another biased interview on Radio 4. During the euthanasia debate, we heard endless unhappy stories from people who wanted to legally be helped to end their lives - never one story of the many faithful, heroic souls who valiantly fight to live on, despite their illnesses, always for the great benefit of those around them. Now we have the interview with the father of a seriously ill son, extended and almost uninterrupted by any challenge, followed by a much shorter interview with Archbishop Nichols, constantly and repetitively interrupted. Compared to the previous speaker, he had very little opportunity to argue the case against human / animal embryo creation. J Harvey
MPs' Expenses
Wonderful, wonderful to hear Sir George Young and other MP's defending each other and complaining about out-of-date parliamentary expenses systems. When will they realise that we are fed up with MP's behaviour, not with systems. G Halliday
MPs' expenses should be incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively in pursuit of their business and should reimbursed against receipts to assure HMRC that no tax liability arises from the reimbursement.
The mechanism for this procedure exists; it is the one imposed on all citizens by legislation designed and voted for by MPs . Jim Madden, West Bridgford
Welcome to Have Your Say, where you can read other listeners' comments and submit your own. Use 
All the parties MUST get together on green policies so that it is not a party issue. We are talking about the world we are leaving to our children and grandchildren. We must become much greener, use much less carbon, more public transport, no more roads, no more airports, or we've basically had it, Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, whatever.
Betsy Barker
The government levies this tax at punishing levels without offering viable alternatives to driving. How are people not to use cars when rail travel is extortionately expensive, buses are not cheap, local railway stations close, local post offices close and local surgeries merge into bigger ones to which people cannot walk? The government seems blind to the fact that driving for many outside London is a necessity, it's a matter of keeping your job, of getting kids to and from school, of getting food and other supplies. The tax seems designed to punish excessive driving: i.e. we drive too much, but at the same time, the government sinks billions into road-building schemes.
Adam Bukolt
I would just like to mention the plight of thousands of people like myself who work in large cities like London and have had to move large distances from their place of work due to exorbitant housing prices. Obviously for us train travel is out of the question ( when I last checked it would cost me approx. £49 a day) hence the tens of thousands of single occupancy cars plodding up and down the motorways each rush hour. Why is the question of renationalisation of the railways never raised? Most people I know and talk to think that this is the most obvious and viable answer to our ridiculous levels of carbon emissions the billions of pounds spent on motorway widening and the untold amount that constant traffic congestion cost the economy and the environment.
Graeme Simson
As a petroleum engineer with 34 years in the industry, let me suggest to you that the government is highly irresponsible to plan for $70 oil with attending runway extensions and road building. We are facing peak oil: half of the oil on this planet has been produced (the easy half) and we are at full capacity. The remaining half will come at ever slower rates, whilst at the same time demand from the developing world is increasing relentlessly. Oil will cost ever more in the future. Our mobility will revert to the level our grand-parents enjoyed: ocean-liners and no airplanes, few car journeys if any.
Bruce Stevens
Come on, one minute the government wants to increase the price of petrol because of global warming, the next they want OPEC to increase the amount of fuel lifted, increasing carbon emissions. The reality is that this government is so profligate that it depends on tax and the largest proportion of the cost goes directly to the Exchequer. The answer to higher fuel cost should be to reduce the tax. But then Prudence Brown has spent all our money hasn't he so he has no room to manoeuvre. Brown and Darling are becoming the Laurel and Hardy of British politics: "that's another fine mess you've gotten me into"
David Brinkman
Embryo research
Any parent would support wishes of the father just interviewed, this shouldn't have needed to be debated. Family is about sharing and making sacrifices for each other. When the 'donor' child is old enough to understand that he/ she helped to save his brother's life then no doubt he will feel proud and glad to have done so. All the very best to the father and the rest of the family.
Sonya Bennett
Having just heard the harrowing case of a father whose son faces "death by a thousand knives" unless a saviour sibling is found, I was astounded to hear the archbishop's comments in the following interview. His comments helped reassure me that Christianity remains one of the most awful superstitions ever created. Can we take the opinions of those who believe in virgin births and people being born again after death with a pinch of salt. I abandoned having imaginary friends at about the age of eight, along with my belief in Father Christmas. We should not allow those who hold 'faith' in similar remarkable superstitions to impose their ancient beliefs in a modern world where only science - and not petitioning the Lord - with the hope of surviving their awful ordeal.
Steve Bird
It is quite ridiculous that the BBC is allowed to use unchallenged emotive cases of childhood suffering which serve only to obscure the central ethical issues surrounding saviour siblings. The amount of suffering relieved by any medical procedure is of no consequence if the procedure itself is immoral. Hence we do not justify harvesting the organs of newborns on the basis of the many individuals who might benefit from them. Why? Because such an action is intrinsically immoral.
Whether the same principles apply to saviour siblings is debatable (I think they do). But the problem here is the underpowered moral reasoning of the BBC, unwilling to challenge the ethical confusion involved. The reason we have laws and morality is precisely to exclude emotive and self-interested factors from society's judgements. When debating saviour siblings, asking what I would do if it were my child is precisely how NOT to proceed ethically and legally. Consider how would the children's commissioner feel if a saviour sibling later wishes to refuse (eg at aged 7) a bone marrow donation? How does the children's commissioner feel about this issue anyway, in terms of the rights of the child?
Dr Robert Davis. Head of Department of Religious Education, University of Glasgow
I notice you plan to interview a religious leader on the subject of ethics and stem cell research. Why are you yet again wheeling out one of these religious people to comment? What have they got to do with the topic? Why do you feel it's necessary or interesting to ask the opinion of a member of a group who have caused more war and suffering than any other group on Earth...They are not qualified to spout moral opinion on any subject. I object to it. Why not speak to a scientist who is against the idea and another who supports it? Religious speakers have no place in these debates.
Kevin Simpson, Bracknell
Embryo Siblings: This is a subject I would not have given much thought to a while ago. But I believe everyone who is the position of having to make the final decision should be made to read Judi Picoult's book My Sister's Keeper. Although only a novel, it cleverly shows the feelings of each member of the family involved, including the sibling bred for this purpose. I now feel that this method is obscene and should be eliminated from the debate, as I am sure others will that read the book.
Jean Searle
Regarding your interview with the parent hoping to save his son. I would not hesitate to do the same. My husband put his name on the bone marrow register and was matched, he donated bone marrow twice to the same person because two donations were necessary. He opted for the short operation and did not find it too painful and the recovery period was short. He has helped to save the life of a young boy we don't know. I wish I had known more about bone marrow donation before I reached 40. It is an amazing gift to give. Please tell your listeners that it really is not as difficult or painful as they might think. That boy could have been our son. It could be any one of us desperate to help a loved one. If science could save your child, who would not follow that path?
Jo Carter
I have a young son with an illness that will benefit with stem cell research, however as a Christian I disagree with the ethics. So far there has been no scientific evidence to show that this works. The government are resting their case with the Donaldson report which is outdated (1999). Currently there are 70 diseases currently being treated successfully using adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells. It seems that the government are listening to the wrong people and placing their eggs in the wrong basket.
Jo Hurst
Yet another biased interview on Radio 4. During the euthanasia debate, we heard endless unhappy stories from people who wanted to legally be helped to end their lives - never one story of the many faithful, heroic souls who valiantly fight to live on, despite their illnesses, always for the great benefit of those around them. Now we have the interview with the father of a seriously ill son, extended and almost uninterrupted by any challenge, followed by a much shorter interview with Archbishop Nichols, constantly and repetitively interrupted. Compared to the previous speaker, he had very little opportunity to argue the case against human / animal embryo creation.
J Harvey
MPs' Expenses
Wonderful, wonderful to hear Sir George Young and other MP's defending each other and complaining about out-of-date parliamentary expenses systems. When will they realise that we are fed up with MP's behaviour, not with systems.
G Halliday
MPs' expenses should be incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively in pursuit of their business and should reimbursed against receipts to assure HMRC that no tax liability arises from the reimbursement.
The mechanism for this procedure exists; it is the one imposed on all citizens by legislation designed and voted for by MPs .
Jim Madden, West Bridgford